Q.(a) Analyse the relations between India and Bangladesh.

SAARC Economic Cooperation: From Neighbours to Partners

Think of your own neighbourhood. You might borrow sugar from one house, share a taxi with another, or help the elderly couple with their groceries. Life becomes easier, cheaper, and more secure when neighbours cooperate instead of each doing everything alone. Now scale that idea up to eight countries that share the same region — that is the core intuition behind SAARC economic cooperation.

What SAARC Actually Is

SAARC stands for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. It was founded in 1985 with seven members — Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka — and Afghanistan joined later in 2007. The founding document, the SAARC Charter, states that the primary goal is to promote the welfare of the peoples of South Asia and to accelerate economic growth, social progress, and cultural development in the region.

The key word here is cooperation, not integration. SAARC is not like the European Union, where countries share a currency and open borders. It is a forum where member states agree to work together on specific areas of mutual benefit — trade, agriculture, health, education, and so on — while keeping their own national policies intact.

The Economic Dimension: Why It Matters

South Asia is home to nearly a quarter of the world's population, yet it is one of the least economically integrated regions in the world. Intra-regional trade — trade among SAARC countries — accounts for only about 5% of their total trade. Compare this to East Asia, where intra-regional trade is around 50%, or the European Union, where it is over 60%. That is a massive missed opportunity.

The Main Instruments of Cooperation

The most significant step toward economic cooperation under SAARC has been the South Asian Free Trade Area (SAFTA) , which came into effect in 2006. SAFTA aims to reduce tariffs among member countries gradually, with the goal of creating a free trade area. Under SAFTA, developing countries in the region (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) were to reduce their tariffs to 0–5% within seven years, while the least developed countries (Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives, Nepal, Afghanistan) were given ten years.

Other areas of economic cooperation include:

• SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (SAPTA) — the earlier, less ambitious agreement that preceded SAFTA, where countries exchanged limited tariff concessions on specific products.
• SAARC Development Fund — a financial mechanism to fund projects in social and economic development, especially in the least developed member states.
• Sectoral cooperation — working groups on energy, transport, tourism, and telecommunications, all of which have direct economic implications.

The Reality Check: Why Progress Has Been Slow

If the logic is so clear, why has SAARC economic cooperation not delivered more? The NCERT textbook, in its chapter on international economic organisations, points to several reasons:

Other obstacles include:

• Non-tariff barriers — even when tariffs are reduced, countries use complex customs procedures, quality standards, and bureaucratic delays to restrict imports. …

Let’s start with something you already know. Imagine two friends who both say they are “fit.” One runs every morning, eats well, and has been doing so for years. The other just bought a gym membership yesterday. Both can claim to be fit, but only one has actually become fit — the habit is deep, the change is real, and it’s unlikely to vanish overnight.

Democratic consolidation is that same idea, applied to a country’s political system. A democracy is not just a one-time event — not just an election, not just a constitution being signed. It is a process that needs to sink in, become stable, and be accepted by everyone as “the only game in town.” When we compare how different countries achieve this stability, we are doing democratic consolidation comparison.

What the NCERT textbook says

The NCERT Class 12 Political Science textbook (Chapter: Challenges of Nation-Building and later chapters on Democracy) does not use the phrase “democratic consolidation comparison” as a formal term, but it teaches the idea clearly. It contrasts India’s experience with that of Pakistan, Bangladesh, and many other newly independent countries. The core point is: holding elections is not enough. A democracy must survive crises, transfer power peacefully, and have its institutions respected by all major political forces.

The precise meaning

Democratic consolidation comparison is the study of why some democracies last and become stable, while others break down or remain fragile. It compares countries on several dimensions:

• Institutional strength: Do courts, election commissions, and legislatures function independently and effectively?
• Elite and mass acceptance: Do political leaders, parties, and ordinary citizens believe democracy is the best system — or do they support anti-democratic alternatives?
• Civil-military relations: Is the military under civilian control, or does it intervene in politics?
• Rule of law: Are laws applied equally, or do rulers bend them for personal or party gain?
• Economic and social conditions: Is there enough development and equality to prevent democracy from being seen as a failure?

When you compare India with, say, Pakistan or Myanmar, you are doing exactly this kind of analysis. India has held regular elections, seen multiple peaceful transfers of power between rival parties, and kept the military out of politics. Pakistan, by contrast, has experienced repeated military coups and periods of authoritarian rule. The comparison helps explain why — not just describe what.

Why it matters for a commerce/humanities student

You might think this is only for political science students. But consider:

• If you go into business or law, you need to assess political risk in different countries. A consolidated democracy is more predictable, has stronger property rights, and is less likely to suddenly change the rules. …